· Private foundation
Steven & Kiki Esrick Dream Foundation Inc
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k9 grants · $16k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $109k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $313k
- $250k+1 grant · $381k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NICKLAUS CHILDRENS HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION | $381,000 |
| HOPE CENTER DONATION | $150,000 |
| ASPEN HOPE CENTER | $110,000 |
| BUILDING FUTURES PROJECT | $52,500 |
| PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION | $40,000 |
| OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY | $25,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $19,000 |
| ACTION IN AFRICA | $14,150 |
| ASPEN VALLEY SKI-SNOWBOARD CLUB | $10,500 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PALM BEACH COUNTY | $3,627 |
| DUCKS UNLIMITED | $3,500 |
| INTERNATIONAL ESPERANZA PROJECT | $2,766 |
| MENORAH MANOR FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| WARRIORS RENEWAL COALITION | $1,000 |
| MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER (MSK) | $1,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $82k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +87% since the first grant, against +42% for the ones you funded once.
31 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 23 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $212k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- NCNicklaus Children's Health Care Foundation9× · 2017–2025 · $3.6M · revenue +44%
- AHASPEN HOPE CENTER9× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +420%
- TBTHE BUDDY PROGRAM INC7× · 2017–2023 · $69k · revenue +52%
Funded once
- WIWORLDSERVE INTERNATIONALone grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -2%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN KIDS CANCER FUNDone grant, 2021 · $35k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2024 · $30k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…
Our mission is to invest in and accelerate the development of the most promising future leaders in biomedical research with global impact.
Inspired by the gift of donation from our communities, allosource responsibly provides innovative cellular and tissue allografts to advance patient healing.
Asco association promotes the common business interests of its members by: (1) advocating for policies that improve the quality of cancer care; (2) maintaining the highest standards of oncology medical care through programs supporting…
We conduct fundamental infectious disease research to generate critical new knowledge about pathogens and their interactions with see schedule o for continuationhumans to enable the discovery and development of novel interventions,…
See schedule o:asco is a professional oncology society committed to conquering cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
City of Hope's mission is to make hope a reality for all touched by cancer and diabetes. PLEASE SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A CONTINUATION OF OUR MISSION
The elizabeth glaser pediatric aids foundation (egpaf) is a proven leader in the fight against pediatric hiv/aids and has reached over 33 million pregnant women with services to prevent transmission of hiv to their babies. to date, egpaf…
Engage actively and continuously in medical research, education and training in the practice of medicine in conjunction with the department of family medicine of the indiana university school of medicine and indiana university…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Aspen Institute Inc and the most unlike its peers is Warriors Renewal Coalition Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 27% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 17% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
52 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 52 of the 79 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Nicklaus Children's Health Care Foundation ↗
- Who funds ASPEN HOPE CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE BUDDY PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PBC ↗
- Who funds THE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds University of Miami ↗
- Who funds BUILDING FUTURES PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds ACTION IN AFRICA INC ↗
- Who funds WORLDSERVE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds ASPEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ASPEN VALLEY SKISNOWBOARD CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BIG DOG RANCH RESCUE INC ↗
- Who funds United States Ski Team Foundation ↗
- Who funds PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY SUPPORT TEAM INC ↗
- Who funds THIRD OPTION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Ocean Healing Group Inc ↗
- Who funds STOP CHILDREN'S CANCER INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL JEWISH HEALTH ↗
- Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds PIONEER WORKS ART FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NETWORK FOR GOOD ↗
- Who funds ASPEN ART MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds THE HOMETOWN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WINDWALKERS EQUINE ASSISTED LEARNING AND ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Aspen Community Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Big Blue Sky Foundation · Jamie Tisch Foundation · William & Lynda Steere Foundation · Arches Foundation · Castaways Foundation · The Thendara Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Chicago Community Trust
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Steven & Kiki Esrick Dream Foundation Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Gulf Coast Jewish Family and Community Services Inc — 15% of income from government
- University of Miami — 5% of income from government
- Big Dog Ranch Rescue Inc — 0% of income from government
- Orange Bowl Committee Inc — 0% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.